Lens choice for Canon 40D

Hey folks, we discussed this topic briefly and I wanted to make sure that I get the point right.
I talked to my friend who is a professional photographer:
www.dyczewski.pl

He suggested me to do the following, get 40D and not Nikon and have a set of 3 lens to meet all my needs.

He said that I have to keep in mind that I will need 70-200 for Formula 1, but this one will come as the last one.

I would need to start with:
either EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM.
That would be the best to start with. As a second he suggestedEF 50mm f/1.4 USM for portrait and finally
EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM for Formula one. He said no to go for 2.8 as it is way too heavy and since all Grand Prix are during the day, I will not need 2.8 and it is much cheaper and probably has a better glass.

What do you think?

Sounds good. I'd suggest the 17-55 rather than the 17-85. It is a much better class of lens. If you wanted to fill that gap (before the arrival of the 70-200), an 85/1.8 could be a useful addition.

What about Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon SLR Cameras?
It is 1.4 of the price of the same from Canon and people say that the quality is the same

If you're going to go with a Tamron for the 40D in place of the 17-55 IS, I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Very similar optically to the Canon, and a better range on the 40D than the 28-75.

I agree completely. For the kind of shooting you are planing, it should handle nearly all your needs very nicely.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #4300024
What about Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon SLR Cameras?
It is 1.4 of the price of the same from Canon and people say that the quality is the same

Jman13 wrote in post #4300059
If you're going to go with a Tamron for the 40D in place of the 17-55 IS, I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Very similar optically to the Canon, and a better range on the 40D than the 28-75.

I agree

This Tamron 17-50 f/2.8...isn't it like the kit lens for 40D? There reason I'm asking is that people say....many of them, the the kit lens is useless

First of all, it's the 17-50, not 15-50. Secondly, the Tamron is NOT like the kit lens. It has a constant f/2.8 aperture and is extremely sharp. It is far from being like the kit lens.. many people get this lens as an alternative over the much more expensive EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it most certainly is a performer.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #4300156
There reason I'm asking is that people say....many of them, the the kit lens is useless

For myself, I have never seen a worse lens than my EF18-55 kit lens, so I'd agree with those people.
The Tamron is in a totally different class. It is a real lens, not a toy. The 17-55, by comparison, is an instrument!

good to know. Thanks!

Jman13 wrote in post #4300059
If you're going to go with a Tamron for the 40D in place of the 17-55 IS, I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Very similar optically to the Canon, and a better range on the 40D than the 28-75.

Collin85 wrote in post #4300167
First of all, it's the 17-50, not 15-50. Secondly, the Tamron is NOT like the kit lens. It has a constant f/2.8 aperture and is extremely sharp. It is far from being like the kit lens.. many people get this lens as an alternative over the much more expensive EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it most certainly is a performer.

It all depends on your budget, the 17-50 is a great lens and at $449 - $25 (UK £260) rebate checkout B&H, if is definitely a worthy consideration compared with the canon 17-55 which is also a great lens but $1000 (UK £630 - Canon rebate 31/12/07)....

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS or f4 IS are both great lenses (and the 70-200mm f2.8 isn't heavy...the 400mm f2.8 is heavy, but I still have a friend who handhold this lens at 5.5kg), accepted, significant difference in price, but not sure I would use it for F1 work unless I was in the press photography pits....The 70-200 definitely doesn't have the range unless you can really get close to the action....I know, tried in Melbourne at this year F1 race, and all I got was fence.....on the other hand would have got stonking shots from the press photographic pits all over the circuit with this lens, but only do this for fun. Photo taken with 70-200mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Peter,
Don't be offended, but this picture is only slightly better the the one I took this year with my sony dsc F717 and this is not a DSLR
This is a good thing you're showing me this picture...because I am now seriously considering....whether I really want to invest 4000 USD to get a picture like this....

ferarri_alex,

all it takes is practice, your first shots will be quite soft like peter's example (please do not be offended). but you will eventually get better.

I am not offended at all Just wanted to say that it is really not worth of spending 4000 USD for a picture like this because you can get it for 500 USD....but I might be wrong. Again, Peter's picture is just an example....I do not want to offend Peter or anything

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #4300347
I am not offended at all Just wanted to say that it is really not worth of spending 4000 USD for a picture like this because you can get it for 500 USD....but I might be wrong. Again, Peter's picture is just an example....I do not want to offend Peter or anything

Alex, I think you missed asxu's point.. and reading another thread of yours I still think you're a little lost on all this money spending.

You could spend $10000USD and get shocking pictures if you lack the skill. It's not about 'spending this much money' to get 'this particular quality of shots'. The 40D and 70-200/2.8 IS is fully capable of excellent shots under the right hands. In other words, just because you're spending lots of money on an expensive camera doesn't automatically mean you're going to get excellent pictures straight away. Focus on improving your skills, not equalising equipment worth to photographic results.